HereIt'Here’s a good video summation of the changing face of law enforcement in America. It includes footage of the swat team that murdered the Marine in Arizona. Rutherford’s John Whitehead also comments on how police are now free to just knock down your door when the mood strikes them.

It's been about 250 years since our ancestors fought to ensure that Americans would never have to face intrusive government measures again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts.

again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to beIt's been about 250 years since our ancestors fought to ensure that Amerihttp://www.rutherford.org/OnTarget/2011/06-01-2011.aspcans would t to ensure that Americans would never have to face intrusive government measures again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courtsght back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts. ns would never have to face intrusive government measures again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts. een about 250 years since our ancestors fought to ensure that Americans would never have to face intrusive government measures again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts.

It's apparent this guy has very little grasp of the recent case law decisions he cites throughout the video. The fourth amendment is not "dead," as a matter of fact it is alive and well. The majority of a detective or federal agent's time is taken writing warrants and gathering information to establish enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant or make an arrest. If the police could simply walk into your house as this guy states without any probable cause, hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, etc, they would never waste their time with a warrant.

It is unfortunate how this "Rutherford Institute" has misconstrued the actions of law enforcement. Two examples:

The Guerena shooting. As I'm sure you are all aware, the Pima County Sheriff's Department has released several documents, including video of the shooting and the search warrant which was used to make entry into Guerena's residence. I urge anyone who has any doubt in this legitimacy of this case to review the warrant. Although lengthy, it does an excellent job at painting the picture of Mr. Guerena's criminal activities. Unfortunately, he was a criminal, and was involved in serious illegal operations with Mexican cartels. An example of how dangerous his organizations was can be found within the search warrant. While surveilling Guerena's house in unmarked vehicles, several mexican nationals exited Guerana's residence and began conducting counter-surveillance measures. At one point, a vehicle from Guerana's residence followed a government surveillance vehicle. The next day, a registration inquiry of the government vehicle was made by a DMV worker. The cartels had a connection within the DMV and were trying to find out if they were being surveilled!

There was a mountain of probable cause to believe narcotics or other evidence regarding the sales and transportation of narcotics was inside of Guerena's residence. A prosecutor and a judge signed off on the warrant. Regardless of whether or not something was found is irrelevant, the police executed the search warrant by the book according to the fourth amendment, sometimes they come out empty handed. All that is required for a search warrant is probable cause to believe something (drugs, etc) is inside the residence, not absolute certainty.

The second example is the Kentucky V. King decision the gentleman in the video is speaking of. His interpretation of the facts is severely misconstrued. He states the police are chasing a "so called suspect" (he was a suspect, he had just sold drugs to an undercover cop) through an apartment building. The gentleman states the officers lose the suspect and randomly "blow down" a door they can smell marijuana coming from. When in reality, the police were only a few feet behind the suspect while running through the apartment complex, the suspect turned a sudden corner and was out of sight for only a few seconds. Within those few seconds the police heard a door slam. When they turned the corner there were two doors. They smelled marijuana emitting from the door on the right. Knowing they were dealing with a confirmed drug dealer, the officers felt it was more probable the drug dealer had run into the apartment was emitting the smell of, you guessed it, an illegal drug.

The police were in "hot pursuit" and acted in "good faith," although they entered the wrong door, their intentions were clearly not simply to kick a random door and do a random search. They were hot on the trail of a bad guy and were trying to find him, the fact they stumbled across additional narcotics is just dumb luck. The supreme court has recognized "good faith" and "hot pursuit" as forgivable instances where law enforcement officials have made errors, but did so without purposely violating the fourth amendment. Our forefathers agreed.

I think this guy is scaring himself to due to his profound lack of comprehension when it comes to legal issues. It's too bad.

You May be totally correct on those two, however the Recent Indiana Supreme Court Ruling is a total mess up, in that it almost guts the 4th amendment and the laws governing self defense in Indiana. The people of that state need to impeach the entire court and start fresh.

__________________I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.

Law enforcement shrewdly likes to use the 6 o'clock local news as their own personal police blotter, so perhaps they got a taste of their own medicine in this one. What they discovered in Guerena's home hardly matches their Pablo Escobar claims. Perhaps they should reveal the real reason for secrecy.

The King case is actually a perfect example of how the 4th amendment has been eroded. Marijuana smoke from behind a door is hardly exigent. Neo Reefer Madness has created a mindset whereby police equate a person getting choked to death with some dude behind a door smoking a fat one.

Law enforcement shrewdly likes to use the 6 o'clock local news as their own personal police blotter, so perhaps they got a taste of their own medicine in this one. What they discovered in Guerena's home hardly matches their Pablo Escobar claims. Perhaps they should reveal the real reason for secrecy.

The King case is actually a perfect example of how the 4th amendment has been eroded. Marijuana smoke from behind a door is hardly exigent. Neo Reefer Madness has created a mindset whereby police equate a person getting choked to death with some dude behind a door smoking a fat one.

I have addressed both of your points in my previous post.

To recap:

It is irrelevant if the police failed to find anything of evidentiary value as a result of the search warrant. They had probable cause to believe evidence was inside of the residence. They followed the steps defined by the fourth amendment and obtained a search warrant. Again, to obtain a search warrant, the police need only articulate "probable cause," not "absolute certainty" that the items they are searching for are inside of the residence.

Secondly, the officers in the King case did not force entry into the apartment solely because they smelled marijuana smoke, it was the totality of the circumstances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf

You May be totally correct on those two, however the Recent Indiana Supreme Court Ruling is a total mess up, in that it almost guts the 4th amendment and the laws governing self defense in Indiana. The people of that state need to impeach the entire court and start fresh.

I am not familiar with Indiana state law. However, don't forget that federal law supersedes state law. If there was a fourth amendment violation, the case can be appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court then has the authority to overturn the law if it deems it unconstitutional.

It is irrelevant if the police failed to find anything of evidentiary value as a result of the search warrant.A dead man is not irrelevant.

They had probable cause to believe evidence was inside of the residence.A form of the word probable is probably. Police success and technique has evolved from probably finding something to hoping they find something.

...the police need only articulate "probable cause," not "absolute certainty"...No one has ever claimed absolute certainty should be present. It is interesting however, that law enforcement has gradually moved away from probably to possibly to hopefully. That is the entire point of the video and Whitehead's position.

Secondly, the officers in the King case did not force entry into the apartment solely because they smelled marijuana smoke, it was the totality of the circumstances.What totality is that? The flushing toilet? Perhaps the exigency in this matter was the apartment resident flushing a severed head he just cutoff.

A dead retired marine and a criminal. Unfortunate but true. These facts are clearly laid out in the search warrant (which I've read). Watch the video, these people heard the police sirens, heard the police announcements, and still decided to grab a rifle. GOOD SHOOT.

Quote:

Police success and technique has evolved from probably finding something to hoping they find something.

Quote:

No one has ever claimed absolute certainty should be present. It is interesting however, that law enforcement has gradually moved away from probably to possibly to hopefully. That is the entire point of the video and Whitehead's position.

How so? It is certainly not the situation in the case mentioned above. The search warrant cites numerous specific facts laying out the probable cause that evidence would be located inside of the residence. Judges won't sign warrants full of "hope" they sign warrants full of "facts."

Quote:

What totality is that? The flushing toilet? Perhaps the exigency in this matter was the apartment resident flushing a severed head he just cutoff.

They were running, they had run quite a distance while chasing a suspect. He went into one door or another. They picked door B because marijuana was emitting from the apartment and the toilet was flushing. Anyone in their right mind would be the dealer PROBABLY went into apartment B and is flushing the rest of his drugs because he knows he's busted. They went into the apartment with good faith. The courts recognize and appreciate this fact.

I don't really know what you would rather have these officers do? Just say "Aw darn he got away," and give up?

A dead retired marine and a criminal.How is he a criminal? If I remember right, he had no record and nothing was found.

How so? It is so as a trend. There are numerous examples where the 4th amendment is increasingly ignored. I have posted about checkpoints numerous times on this forum. I also posted about the truckers who were asked questions about their so-called Playboy reading habits and how often they take a whizz. There is also the recent Indiana case. There are also government boneheads who think that working in a library should require a drug inspection of the candidate. I could list and list til the cows come home.

They were running, they had run quite a distance while chasing a suspect. He went into one door or another. They picked door B because marijuana was emitting from the apartment and the toilet was flushing. Anyone in their right mind would be the dealer PROBABLY went into apartment B and is flushing the rest of his drugs because he knows he's busted.Where do you get probably? They got it wrong.

They went into the apartment with good faith. The courts recognize and appreciate this fact.The crux of the issue is exigency, especially when it comes to a residence. Warrantless searches should be the exception, not the rule.

I don't really know what you would rather have these officers do?How about getting a warrant.

IF--you have the money to fight the system. For poor people it can be very daunting.

IF--you have an honest case, there are more than enough lawyers who will take your case probono....hell, even if its a b.s. case there are lawyers who will take it probono knowing that entities pay off instead of fight in court.....

The sensational actions of the few are being propagated as "the norm". Does the guy in the video really think that most LEO's are wearing swat gear? Out here in the woods where I live, State and County have regular uniforms, city is likely to be wearing jeans and a T-shirt with insignia. Even our local special teams wear regular uniforms. Media - bah humbug.

IF--you have an honest case, there are more than enough lawyers who will take your case probono....hell, even if its a b.s. case there are lawyers who will take it probono knowing that entities pay off instead of fight in court.....

Dingdingding!

Federal law authorizes full attorney costs to be paid by the .gov. All the poor guy with the honest case has to do is win $1 (of which the same attorney will take 33 cents...).

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

How is he a criminal? If I remember right, he had no record and nothing was found.

So I guess since there's no criminal history he's not one??? Actions and what the officers had to deal with at the time the incident took place.

Quote:

It is so as a trend. There are numerous examples where the 4th amendment is increasingly ignored. I have posted about checkpoints numerous times on this forum. I also posted about the truckers who were asked questions about their so-called Playboy reading habits and how often they take a whizz. There is also the recent Indiana case. There are also government boneheads who think that working in a library should require a drug inspection of the candidate. I could list and list til the cows come home.

Considering the tens of thousands of arrests every week that go by the book when it comes to 4th Amendment issues, there's no trend. Checkpoints and the constitutionality of them are very strict. I don't see a "trend" here either. Considering cop work in the 70s/80s versus LE work now days, if anything officers know more about constitutional issues and the law more than they ever did.

Quote:

Where do you get probably? They got it wrong.

There were only seconds that had elapsed. They thought he was in there and destruction of evidence is an exigent circumstance to the warrant requirement. The judge(s) had no problem with the warrantless search, regardless of the outcome. If you can't accept that, it's your perrogative. We go by the judge's decision.

Quote:

How about getting a warrant.

If evidence is being destroyed, or we have a valid and articulable reason to believe evidence is being destroyed, time to get a warrant is too late. The facts demonstrated this in the particular case at hand.

So I guess since there's no criminal history he's not one???He's not a criminal if he was never convicted of a crime.

Checkpoints and the constitutionality of them are very strict.They are not strict at all. Statutes and courts have given expanded discretion to law enforcement. Statutes and court decisions are full of legal doubletalk that leaves confusion for both motorists and law enforcement. I have read these court decsions regarding expansive vs. limited checkpoints, primary purpose vs. secondary purpose, etc., and I have never seen more mumbo jumbo in my life.

I don't see a "trend" here either. Considering cop work in the 70s/80s versus LE work now days, if anything officers know more about constitutional issues and the law more than they ever did.The constitution has been muddied by activist judges. Law enforcement has pushed the envelope because they have chosen to cast wide nets. Dealing with more law-abiding citizens means more contention and more resistance on the part of the law-abiding. Law enforcement is less skilled and equipped to handle these more ambigious situations. Zero tolerance means less skill dealing with non-criminals.

There were only seconds that had elapsed. They thought he was in there and destruction of evidence is an exigent circumstance to the warrant requirement. The judge(s) had no problem with the warrantless search, regardless of the outcome. If you can't accept that, it's your perrogative. We go by the judge's decision.The standard of exigent has changed. This was not something like a life-or-death emergency. Warrantless action was always limited to more exceptional circumstances. Some guy possibly smoking a joint is not grounds to knock down a door in that situation.

So I guess since there's no criminal history he's not one???
He's not a criminal if he was never convicted of a crime.

Checkpoints and the constitutionality of them are very strict.
They are not strict at all. Statutes and courts have given expanded discretion to law enforcement. Statutes and court decisions are full of legal doubletalk that leaves confusion for both motorists and law enforcement. I have read these court decsions regarding expansive vs. limited checkpoints, primary purpose vs. secondary purpose, etc., and I have never seen more mumbo jumbo in my life.

I don't see a "trend" here either. Considering cop work in the 70s/80s versus LE work now days, if anything officers know more about constitutional issues and the law more than they ever did.
The constitution has been muddied by activist judges. Law enforcement has pushed the envelope because they have chosen to cast wide nets. Dealing with more law-abiding citizens means more contention and more resistance on the part of the law-abiding. Law enforcement is less skilled and equipped to handle these more ambigious situations. Zero tolerance means less skill dealing with non-criminals.

There were only seconds that had elapsed. They thought he was in there and destruction of evidence is an exigent circumstance to the warrant requirement. The judge(s) had no problem with the warrantless search, regardless of the outcome. If you can't accept that, it's your perrogative. We go by the judge's decision.
The standard of exigent has changed. This was not something like a life-or-death emergency. Warrantless action was always limited to more exceptional circumstances. Some guy possibly smoking a joint is not grounds to knock down a door in that situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty

.....

the cops are playing by the rules the judges whom you elected enacted.

since you dont like you should change the law. and doing it starts with election of different judges, not talking crap about cops following the current law.

the cops are playing by the rules the judges whom you elected enacted.

since you dont like you should change the law. and doing it starts with election of different judges, not talking crap about cops following the current law.

You're right; some judges have dropped the ball on these issues. Some judges don't even know how rules are being bent and how limits are being redefined in the real world. Pointing to another branch of government however, is still no excuse for law enforcement not doing its job.